Christopher Browne wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: > >> On 3/12/11, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >> >> People are confused about what template0 is for, so I created the > >> >> attached one-line patch to add a database comment to template0. No > >> >> initdb, I assume, becuase it is just a comment. > >> > > >> >> + ? ? ? ? ?"COMMENT ON DATABASE template0 IS 'only used by pg_dump';\n", > >> > > >> > No objection to the concept, but the actual text of this comment is > >> > approximately 100% wrong. > >> > > >> > >> I'd like to lodge a formal objection to the use of the word > >> 'approximately' in the above comment. > > > > OK, funny guys. ?;-) ?Can someone give me the right text. ?Obviously I > > don' know what template0 is used for either. ?Is it pg_dumpall perhaps? > > Whaa?!?! > > pg_dump has nothing to do with it. Only used by createdb > > Possibilities include: > - 'base template database' > - 'base template (used if template1 is corrupted)' > - 'backup template (use if template1 corrupted)' > > Contrast with template1 > - 'default template for creation of new databases' > > I dunno that those are the *best* wordings, but they may suggest one.
I thought the big deal with template0 was it was used to find items that were added to template1 by pg_dumpall. I think Thom's idea of not describing its use but its contents might be best, maybe "unmodifiable template database". -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
